Central Information Commission
Sai Jayanth A R vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCITH/A/2020/682584
Sai Jayanth A R ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3)
Hyderabad, RTI Cell, First and
Second Floors, B&D Blocks,
Income Tax Towers, 10-2-3, A C
Guards, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad-500004, Telangana .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/01/2022
Date of Decision : 27/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/12/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 31/05/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/08/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 6.12.2019 seeking the following information regarding a tax evasion petition dated 05.10.2018 filed by him against M Vijayveer, M Swaroopa Rani and M Sai Raj and also Against M Archana Rani:
"I. Whether the above-mentioned people are Income Tax Assessee or not?
2. They have been filing their income tax returns on regular basis or not?
3. Please provide me the details with certified copies of Income Declared / Income Tax paid from the A.Ys 2009-2010 till 2018-2019 by Mrs.Madari Archana Rani
4. What action your esteemed department has initiated against them in view of the disclosure made by their daughter M Archana Rani and her parents and brother under sworn affidavits and chargesheet filed by Aiwa! Police (submitted along with the TEP).
5. If the department has decided not to provide the above-mentioned information, please furnish the reasons.
6. What reasons your department has with not complying with the ratio of judgement laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh Vs Central Information Commissioner and Others vide Writ Petition (Civil) 3114/2007 dated 03.12.2007
7. Have all the above-mentioned people attended all hearings at Income Tax Department w.r.t proceedings initiated against her, if not, on what dates she has not joined the proceedings and what reasons she has assigned to the same
8. Please provide the list of all people with complete address who have helped with money on the occasion of the marriage of Mrs.Madari Archana Rani with the money they claim to have given during their wedding.
9. Have any of such persons claimed to have helped with amount more than Rs. 20,000/-. If so, please provide the name and complete address of that person.
10. If any person exists which can be subjected to the conditions enumerated in Query 3, what action department has taken for flouting S 269SS of Income Tax Act. 1961? If the said person did not fall under the jurisdiction of your esteemed office, has the information been passed to relevant office having the jurisdiction over that person?"
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply (copy of which is not placed on record), the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Abhishek Jha, ITO Ward 9 (1) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that till date he has not been provided with the desired information except intimation of forwarding the RTI Application as argued in his detailed written submissions sent prior to the hearing.
The CPIO agreed to abide by the order of the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that prima-facie no final reply was provided to the RTI Application till date by the CPIO which amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. The CPIO is hereby directed to send a written explanation in this regard along with the supporting documents, if any, to the Commission within 15 days from the date of this order.
Further, the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to the personal information of third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Yet, the Appellant has limited his prayer for relief to the outcome of the action taken on the TEP filed by him which can be allowed in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a reply to the instant RTI Application stating the outcome of the action taken on the averred TEP. The said information shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4